Clockwise and Counterclockwise

A seemingly obvious empirical fact is that clockwise motion and counterclockwise motion are mutually exclusive, i. e. that only one or the other can obtain simultaneously at a given locus. On the other hand, Aristotle briefly entertains the possibility that a single process can involve both, with one as "preponderant", but he dismisses it on the grounds that the other would be "inoperative", which would be contrary to his concept of Nature. However, modern Physics demonstrates that a motion can be both subordinate and, yet, still operative, by virtue of its analysis of Motion as the resultant of a multiplicity of forces, including, perhaps, antagonistic ones. Accordingly, that a given motion is either clockwise or counterclockwise does not preclude that it is the result of a combination of the two, with one preponderant, in the given case. Likewise, any object not empirically rotating could be one in which clockwise and counterclockwise motions are both operative, but have achieved an equilibrium. Thus, Aristotle would be wrong to infer from the existence of a divine infinite circular movement that it encounters no resistance from a counter-movement, or that the movement of the heavens is not merely a contingent resultant of the interplay of a multiplicity of divinities.